A multidisciplinary Inquiry

Category Archives: Uncategorized

The entire room of lobbyists laughed as we heard the update: a new bill introduced in the Georgia House of Representatives to allow school administrators to carry firearms[1]? There was no way this would gather enough support to pass. Plenty of new bills were introduced across the nation in response to recent incidents of gun violence; this could not be anything more than one Georgia legislator’s attempt to show his voters that he is tough on crime. My colleagues dismissed the bill, convinced it was proposed simply to provide that legislator with a campaign piece during the next election season, and not a serious attempt at preventing gun violence.

We dismissed the bill…until the next week, when a new update stunned us: the bill had been amended by the House Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security to allow any school personnel, not just administrators, to carry firearms on campus. The committee had actually expanded the proposal. Specifically, the bill authorizes local school boards of education to approve people to carry firearms on school property, including on school buses and at school functions. The only training the person must complete is “judgment pistol shooting, marksmanship, and a review of current laws relating to the use of force for the defense of self and others.” The bill does not require any minimum hours of training, nor mention any other requirement for training, though it does exempt from training (at the school board’s discretion) people with prior military or law enforcement training. School boards must keep a list of the types and number of firearms the person is allowed to carry, and the firearm must be carried on the person’s body, not in a purse or briefcase. The only people the bill explicitly excludes from approval are those with a history of mental or emotional instability; the bill does not explicitly exclude those with criminal histories. The person must possess a valid weapons carry license, and school boards must conduct annual background checks on the person to determine whether the person remains qualified to possess a weapons carry license. No school board can force any person to carry, and no school board is obligated to approve people to carry. That’s it. That’s every provision of the bill, paraphrased.

In traditional Georgian fashion, a lot of discretion is left up to the county or city’s school board. Kenneth Trump, President of National School Safety and Security Services, believes the responsibility and liabilities of arming school personnel are “beyond the expertise, knowledge-base, experience, and professional capabilities” of school boards[2]. He cautions against tasking teachers with the responsibilities of police officers, who receive months of training and develop a life-safety mindset that is different from that of civilians. According to Trump, education professionals and public safety professionals across the nation do not believe that educators should be armed. He emphasizes the enormous liability on the local school board should something go wrong.

The only personnel allowed to carry firearms on campus should be trained school resource officers and police forces. Instead of arming school personnel, legislatures should focus on fundraising to employ trained professionals at every school. This protective measure should be part of a greater measure to eliminate gun violence by enacting stricter gun laws, such as background checks for purchase and prohibition of assault rifles.

While efforts to prevent gun violence should be promoted, only sensible measures should succeed. The Georgia House of Representatives’ bill to allow any school personnel to carry firearms is not a sensible measure, thus should not succeed. Currently, the bill has been tabled until the next General Assembly Session in January 2014. While this means the bill will not be enacted into law this year, it also means the House leadership considers it a viable bill. To voice your opinion, contact your representative[3].

A recent discussion in our Violence seminar centered on the idea of media accountability in news reporting. The lecturer, Rebecca Palpant, directed particular attention to the relationship between media coverage/bias and societal views on mental health issues. According to Dr. Palpant, the media’s portrayal of people with mental health problems and the issues themselves holds significant power in defining and maintaining societal norms. This directly affects the way that patients with mental health disorders are treated, both in a private and public sphere. Personally, the patient’s social interactions, treatment options, and education and job opportunities will be affected by his or hers diagnosis; in the public sphere, media coverage influences hospitals, insurance companies, public policy experts, and government leaders as they are faced with decisions regarding mental health. Dr. Palpant emphasized the media’s large role in both of these arenas and discussed the importance of both publicity and media accountability with regards to these sorts of complex, sensitive issues.

I couldn’t help but think of Dr. Palpant’s words as I followed coverage of the Boston bombings over these past two weeks. As the initial events of the MIT shooting and Watertown chase were occurring, the Twitter hashtag “#SunilTripathi” went viral. Tripathi, a student of Indian-American heritage, had gone missing from Brown University approximately one month prior. The online community mis-identified Tripathi as one of the bombers, and Twitter, Reddit, blogs, and even certain news organizations began naming him as a suspect. Hours later, when the FBI finally released the names of the bombers, Tamerlane and Dzokhar Tsarnaev, the focus quickly shifted to their backgrounds and beliefs instead.

Tripathi’s body was found in a Providence, R.I., river approximately a week after the Watertown incident. Although many news sources retracted their inaccurate reports and individuals and the Reddit community offered their apologies, Sunil Tripathi’s story quickly fell to the back of the news pages, a sad saga of an apparently depressed college student who committed suicide.

I found multiple aspects of this chain of events troublesome. The mis-identification of Tripathi and the premature rush to publicize and condemn him without official confirmation was highly disturbing. Not only did it show an alarming lack of concern for this man’s family and reputation, but it also had hallmarks of xenophobia and discrimination. As an Indian-American myself, I am particularly sensitive to this issue; it did not escape my attention that quite a few of the sources naming him as a suspect commented on his skin tone and suggested a possible link to Islam. Another complicated facet was Tripathi’s apparent depression, which had compelled his family to make a Facebook group begging for Tripathi’s safe return.

This detail correlated directly with Dr. Palpant’s discussion on the media bias linking mental illness with aggression and criminal behavior. Already a suspect based on his missing status and ethnicity, Tripathi’s mental health problems secured his involvement with the bombings. Writers and commentators alike made comments, since removed, which illustrated Tripathi as a disturbed individual who was probably influenced by Islamic radicals. The rush of the 24/7 news cycle and the need to be first caused many websites to name him without confirmation, and this is where the issue of media accountability becomes not only relevant, but essential.

Had Sunil Tripathi still been alive, he would have awoken in the morning to find his reputation in tatters due to this overzealous and irresponsible reporting. As it stands, this experience must have been unimaginably traumatizing for the Tripathi family, which has been largely ignored since the initial rush to gain information regarding Sunil. This story is a clear example of the sheer importance of media accountability, particularly for sensitive news issues. Until then, we are left with a sober warning about mass media on the Internet and the Tripathi family’s final public statement to everyone who is struggling: “Be open to letting someone in when it is you who is faltering. Lend your hand. We need it. The world needs it.”

Pheadra’s lecture on the costs of the maltreatment of children provided a uniquely holistic representation of how violence affects society from an economic perspective. The WHO conducted a study in 2004 that takes a more expansive look at violence through the lens of interpersonal violence including child abuse, partner violence, elder abuse, sexual abuse, workplace violence, youth violence, and other violent crime.

Like Phaedra’s cost analysis, the WHO divides costs into direct and indirect costs. Direct costs include those such as cost of legal services and foster care, while the indirect costs include a person’s lost earnings and investment in human capital. The total cost for estimated loss from violence is $329.8 billion dollars, equal to 3.3% of the U.S. GDP. From Phaedra’s lecture we can add an additional $33 billion dollars for self-inflicted violence. Outside of the United States, the costs are much higher. It is estimated that in 1997 Colombia lost 24.7% of its GDP due to violence. Seems like a lot, right?

The real cost question still remains: what would it cost to intervene?

The WHO estimates that prevention of violence-related problems is much less costly than programs to solve the problems once they arise. For child abuse, they estimate that the prevention costs are a tiny 1/19 of the eventual child abuse costs incurred. The net savings per sexual offender are around $26,000. A study in Arizona cited in the WHO’s report notes a net social gain of $3.4 million dollars, saving about 3-15 million.

What more do we need to do to show that violence has immeasurable costs to our society? And how many times can we talk do we need to talk about it before we take more action? The Wall Street Journal’s article, “On India’s Streets, Women Run a Gantlet of Harassment”, by Amol Sharma, Biman Mukherji and Rupa Subramanaya reminds us of a recent violent episode in mid-December from the New Delhi bus gang-rape. The article describes the environment in Kolkata -the police do little to prevent violence, while women travel in groups and carry sharp objects to deter attacks. These incidences should help us make faster “moves” so to speak, in the policy arena.

How severe does violence need to be for our policy makers to finally make necessary budgeting decisions?

In class we discussed the Cincinnati Initiative to Reduce Violence (CIRV), a program to decrease crime in the Cincinnati area. Crime in Cincinnati fits a One-to-Many model: 3% of the Cincinnati population commits 73.5% of homicides. This poses a vexing question: how might law enforcement break what appears to be a tightly knit network of criminals that has highly magnified, disruptive effects on the community? To address this challenge, CIRV approaches crime by coordinating the efforts of multiple law enforcement, social service, and community service agencies in a community outreach-oriented program.

CIRV’s most distinctive characteristic is the call-in program. Call-in meetings provide an opportunity for criminals and state officials to create a dialogue and discuss available resources, such as potential employment opportunities. In addition, call-in meetings also allow law enforcement officials to consistently reinforce the consequences of criminal recidivism. The city of Stockton, California, recently reinstated call-in meetings for the first time since the 1990s. The variety of leaders they have brought together is inspiring. Stockton has employed church leaders, gang outreach workers, and on the prosecution side, the District Attorney’s office, the U.S. Attorney’s office, Probation and Stockton Police Chief Eric Jones. A community effort, such as Stockton’s, acknowledges crime is a much more complex than moving prisoners in small cells with Draconian conditions. Instead, the CIRV-like approach illuminates the notion that progressive rehabilitation is a strong possibility for those that commit crimes.

While the program’s success in Stockton has yet to be determined, there is significant evidence that CIRV achieved noteworthy gains in Cincinnati. In 2007, homicides declined 68%, the largest single-year drop since 1991. As discussed in class, Braga and Weisburd suggest that CIRV’s success is due in part to its adherence to the principal that “targeted offenders should be treated with respect and dignity… reflecting procedural justice principals” (Kennedy 2008, 2009: 351). As additional cities mimic CIRV across the United States, a decrease in crime becomes increasingly possible. I can only imagine how different outcomes would have been had convicted criminals been treated with respect and dignity before they felt the need to commit their crimes in the first place.

This week’s past lecture, we discussed deterrence theory and different methods and approaches to prevent crime. The focused deterrence model is the idea that the possibility of punishment for one’s actions prevents people from committing crimes. Personally I think this theory is only viable for certain circumstances. In certain places where law enforcement isn’t perceived as a threat, people may commit crimes without fear of being caught. When there is a lack of respect between the police and community members this circumstance is evident.

Growing up I was taught to trust those in charge like elders, teachers, police officers, firefighters, etc… As I got older, I saw how police treated some of my peers and I quickly lost that trust. They were supposed to aid the community in stopping crime, not point fingers at the first person they see wearing baggy jeans and a black hoodie. Between random stops on the street and arrests for simply “looking suspicious,” the police in my neighborhood were not considered friends amongst us.

The first thing that comes to mind when I think of a lack of respect is NWA’s famous song “Fuck the Police.” Some lyrics include, “Fuck the police comin straight from the underground, a young nigga got it bad cause I’m brown, and not the other color so police think they have the authority to kill a minority.” NWA hails from Compton, CA, a place where the police targeted blacks heavily and when this song came out it wasn’t news to anyone because most people shared this sentiment. The song demonstrates the extreme disconnect in a place were the police were not protecting the citizens, which led them not to discredit their power and authority, rendering them useless.

A show recently aired on TNT entitled, “Boston’s Finest” about Boston’s Police Department. The show portrayed the cops capturing suspects, talking to youth, and their lives at home with their families. The bio on the TNT website says, “Boston’s Finest offers viewers an up-close and very personal look at what it takes to protect and serve one of America’s greatest and most distinctive cities.” While I thought there was some truth to the process in which they catch suspects, I think the show portrayed a false reality of the relations between the cops and youth in the city. Being a resident of Boston, I can say firsthand that there needs to be an improvement of the image of cops in the city. Boston has a similar structure to the “Governing Board” that Dean Dabney outlined in the lecture. However, not all systems have strong ties with one another, especially law enforcement. A study outlined some of the reasons why people lack faith in the police department including lack of confidence in police to solve issues, a risk of mistreatment, and a loss of respect from one’s peers (Anderson). Many people don’t trust cops because of personal experiences or seeing mistreatment happen to their peers. Clearly there needs to be change in the inner city so that the police and people in the community can trust one another. After seeing these shows and viewing this mistrust firsthand, I can say that it will take a lot of TLC to get everyone on one side and trusting the police to have our best interests.

Anderson, E. (1992). The story of John Turner. Public Interest, 108, 3-34

Pockets of crime have a tendency to form centralized and inter-connected operations in inner city neighborhoods. South-side Chicago, the Bowdoin-Geneva (Dorchester) neighborhood in Boston, and “Vine City” in Atlanta Georgia are all notorious for gang related activity, drug trafficking, and other elements that breed violence and crime.

Over the last two decades, federal, state, and local dollars have been allocated to programs across the country in an attempt to rid these communities of violence that has contributed to general decay, loss of property, and unfortunately loss of life. The return in results per funding of programs has been minimal in many urban areas. According to Sherman, the evaluation processes in the programs are complicated due to inability to maintain controls. “Any attempt to evaluate an internally diverse national funding program is comparable to a pharmacy evaluation. Even if the right preventative treatments are matched to the right crime risks, a national before-and-after evaluation of a funding stream would lack vital elements of the scientific method. The lack of a control group makes it impossible to eliminate alternative theories about why national-level crime rates changed” (Sherman, Gottfredson, MacKenzie, Eck, Reuter, & Bushway, 1997).

Jonathan Kennedy initiated deterrence-based programs aimed at connecting law enforcement, community leaders, and nonprofit organizations to form coalitions that joined forces to focus on pockets of resistance within communities affected by crime and violence. Deterrence-based models use group pressure, group support, and substantial communication with persons of influence in the streets, to develop a network of agents who have internal or external vested interest in the targeted community (Dabney, 2013).

Currently, there is a movement working from the ground-level up, to create a comparable coalition in Atlanta that will utilize the deterrence-based model in the Vine City community. Some are cynical about the prospective effort as evidenced by a recent story in the magazine, Atlanta entitled, “It’s Going To Take More Than $45 Million To Help Vine City” (Atlanta, 2013). According to Dean Dabney, guest lecturer in our Violence Inquiry course, correctional approaches for criminals have shifted from varying perspectives for years ranging from rehabilitation strategies to tough on crime policies without substantial results. Advocates of the rehabilitation model argue that there was a failure to properly implement the model. On the other hand, ideologies promoted by conservatives, packaged as “warehouse theories” were cited as largely ineffective. The difference with deterrence-based theory is the concept that “crimes can be prevented when the costs of committing the crime are perceived by the offender to outweigh the benefits” (Braga & Weisburd, 2012).

Deterrence-based programs, considers a strategic offense from an economic premise, where the end result must provide some incentive for the action. Essentially, law enforcement uses offenders and ex-offenders as street agents. The offender is enlisted to work with the coalition to identify perpetrators and provide other useful information for law enforcement, particularly incidences that are related to gang violence. Dabney relates, gang related violence accounts for the structured connections between drug dealing, assaults, and other criminal actions in most communities. By applying pressure, and breaking up the gang units, crime has been statistically shown to decrease. Initially, I thought the process of enlisting offenders sounded too much like “snitching.” However, the difference with deterrence-based programs is the immediate reward or the immediate weight of federal enforcers. Most community-based programs are not connected with the federal branches of law enforcement on a programmatic level. In the past, the strength of the law depended upon state and local enforcers. With federal agents in the mix, the arm of the law has the capacity to stretch longer, deeper, and wider creating adverse situations for offenders, such as prison-time in cities located multiple states away from home – which reduces the likelihood of visitation. Most offenders are more inclined to cooperate when the cons outweigh the pros. As a result of the flexed federal arm, the offender usually agrees to function as the point of contact. In other instances people with criminal records who are guilty of lower level offenses receive the full extent of the law rather than the usual minimum sentence in an effort to send a message to other offenders that there is a serious effort on the ground to root out, and eradicate criminal elements in the community.

The deterrence-based model produced results in Boston. Typically duplicating programs with some modifications per the dynamics of the city are successful. However, working from the inside in, appears to be one of the major roadblocks to accomplishing the goals in Atlanta’s Vine City. For example, one of the difficulties in the establishment of the coalition was determining who to utilize as agents in the slots dedicated for community stakeholders (Dabney, 2013). There also seems to be a general malaise about the derelict conditions in the Vine City area although the deterioration belies the beautifully landscaped sidewalks a few blocks away in downtown Atlanta. According to Atlanta magazine reporter, Rebecca Burns, a drive along Sunset Street “provides an instant snapshot of how impoverished Vine City and English Avenue truly are” (Burns, 2013). An online source reports, the median income in the Vine City area is $24, 186 compared to the median income of Atlanta residents of $49,981 (City-Data.com, 2013). “Bleak doesn’t begin to describe it; Third-World is too cheap and easy a label but comes closer” (Burns, 2013). Although a large part of the debate hinges on the criminal issues, researchers acknowledge that poverty is a major co-factor, the other “usual suspect” in neighborhoods where violence reaches tipping points.

Physicians and practitioners are making a concerted effort to change the way we perceive violence, thus the intention of this course, to draw attention to the connection between health and violence. In fact, Dabney asserted that the presence of Grady Health System’s emergency care is largely responsible for the reduction of human collateral. Without the team of specialized physicians at Grady there would be more funerals.

There are serious efforts in academia to rank violence as a public policy issue and tie the problem more directly to public health. “The public understands the prevention of disease through the concepts of lifestyle choices. Similarly, people have a good understanding of automobile safety and injury prevention when it is logically framed to show cause and effect between seat-belt usage and failure to wear a seat-belt”(Sherman, et al., 1997). The more we connect the dots between violence and public health, by emphasizing the long-lasting, emotional, physical, mental, financial, and often fatal consequences of violence on society as a whole, and in individual cases; the general public will grow to understand how critical it is to become proactive in efforts to combat violence.

Braga, A. A., Weisburd, D. L., (2012). The effects of focused deterrence strategies on crime: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the empirical evidence. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. 49(30. 323-358.

In class we discussed violence against domestic animals. The relationship between humans and animals is determined by how the animal is categorized (companion animal, laboratory animal, livestock, or warm-blooded animal). Companion animals, such as dogs and cats, have a special relationship with humans and the most legal protection of the categories. It seems that protection isn’t because the animals themselves deserve protection but rather because of the human interest in the animal. Dogs in particular have a strong bond with humans. Being a dog lover myself I decided to delve into the relationship between canines and people.

The volunteers most easily identified happiness (88%). The second most identifiable emotion was anger which was recognized by 70% of the volunteers. The remaining emotions and corresponding percent of recognition are frightened 45%, sadness 37%, surprise 20%, and disgust 13%. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/pets/9934977/Scientists-prove-you-really-can-tell-what-your-dog-is-feeling-by-looking-at-its-face.html) Interestingly, the study showed that the volunteers who had minimal experience with dogs were better able to identify disgust and anger. The researchers think that the inexperienced volunteers could recognize the emotion of the dog because the ability to read a dog’s face comes naturally and isn’t a learned skill. It is unclear why this is the case but the researchers hypothesize that this ability might be due to the long shared history or common mammalian ancestry. Facial expressions of dogs are similar to human facial expressions. Overall the experienced volunteers could correctly identify the dog’s emotion 45% of the time and the inexperienced group was correct 38% of the time. (Bloom, T., Friedman, H., Classifying dogs’ (Canis familiaris) facial expressions from photographs. Behav. Process. (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2013.02.010).

Examples of Canine Loyalty

Dogs are man’s best friend. They are loyal companions who grieve the loss of their friends too. Not too long ago my mom and I watched the movie Hachi: A Dog’s Tale starring Richard Gere. Neither of us can even talk about the movie without crying. The movie is based on the true story of a University of Tokyo professor and his furry companion Hachiko from the 1920s. Richard Gere plays a professor who takes the train to work everyday. One night coming home he comes across an Akita puppy all alone in the cold at the train station. He takes the dog home and they instantly bond. Every morning Hachi escorts the professor to the train station and every afternoon he meets the professor to walk him home. Spoiler Alert! Years later the professor takes the train to school but something horrible happens and he never returns. Hachi waited for his return. It never came. The professor’s family took Hachi home but they couldn’t keep him there. Hachi escaped to return to the train station to wait for his friend; he continued to wait until his death 9 years later.

Recently another episode of canine loyalty surfaced in the media. In 2006, similar to Hachi’s devotion, German Shepherd Capitan ran away from home after his friend Miguel Guzman died suddenly and found his grave. The family found Capitan at the grave the following week. For the past 6 years every evening Capitan returns to the cemetery and spends the night on his best friend’s grave.

A third loyal companion is Ciccio (or Tommy), a German Shepherd from Italy. Prior to her companion’s death, each afternoon Ciccio would accompany her friend to mass. Ciccio attended the funeral and followed the procession of the coffin to the same local church where the 2 had attended mass.

Many owners reciprocate this loyalty. There are many people who have dogs and lovingly care for them because the dog is a member of the family. People are so attached to their pets that Congress passed a law allowing pets to stay in shelters with their families during federal emergencies. (Animals as Vulnerable Subjects: Beyond Interest-Convergence, Hierarchy, and Property by Ani B. Satz 2009, 67, 83) Some people were killed during Hurricane Katrina when they refused to leave their homes without their animals. (Satz, 67, 83)

However, while dog is man’s best friend, people do not always hold up their end of the friendship. Many other dogs aren’t so lucky and suffer abuse and neglect at the hands of people whether it be through action or failure to act. Many animals are sentient beings meaning they have the capacity to suffer. (Satz, 73-77) Domestic animals are particularly vulnerable to exploitation because they are permanently dependent on human caregivers. (Satz, 81) At a minimum, domestic animals are dependent on their caregivers for food, water, and shelter and at the mercy of others.

There is so much neglect, that states have criminalized companion animal abuse and neglect. (Satz, 81) Companion animals are domesticated live as a pet such as dogs, cats, birds, rabbits, and horses. Some purposes of these laws include a desire to keep them from harm, protect the relationships people value with their pets, and the link between animal cruelty and violence against humans. (Satz, 67-73)

For example, Georgia defines cruelty to animals: “when he or she causes death or unjustifiable physical pain or suffering to any animal by an act or omission, or willful neglect.” Ga. Code Ann. § 16-12-4. The term animal does not include fish or pests and willful neglect is intentional withholding of food and water necessary to prevent starvation or dehydration. In Georgia, “a person commits the offense of aggravated cruelty to animals when he or she knowingly and maliciously causes death or serious physical harm to an animal by rendering a part of such animal’s body useless or by seriously disfiguring such animal.” Ga. Code Ann. § 16-12-4.

You’d think that because people can decipher a dog’s emotion by his or her facial expressions and how loyal dogs have proven to be to their human counterparts there would be less mistreatment of dogs. Unfortunately that doesn’t seem to be the case. If you are interested in volunteering and helping homeless dogs and cats in your community check out Georgia Homeless Pets http://www.gahomelesspets.com/ and/or Homeless Pets Foundation http://www.homelesspets.com/. I have volunteered with both organizations and they need all the help they can get!

Information provided by the cited materials above and the links listed below.